list_related_projects

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the list includes both config-defined and add_related_project-added projects, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, errors, or return format. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and includes the key detail about the two sources. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. No redundancy or unnecessary content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the tool's output (list of related projects) and the two categories it covers. It omits details like return format or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a simple read operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a list of related projects. It specifies the two sources (configuration file and add_related_project), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool add_related_project that writes rather than reads. The verb '取得' (retrieve) and resource '関連プロジェクト' (related projects) are explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (to view all related projects) but does not explicitly state usage scenarios or alternatives. There is no exclusion like 'use add_related_project to add, not list,' though this is inferable from the sibling tool names. Guidance is present but implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.